Posted on 03/11/2019 8:26:26 AM PDT by Taxman
Officials promoting so-called "red-flag laws" should be evaluated for fitness to serve. Why? Because their so called "extreme protection orders" are blatant constitutional violations and have no place in an American system of justice. This much is obvious.
Empowering your neighbors, roommates, former lovers, relatives or people who have a grudge against you to use armed police to attack you, without warning or probable cause, does you serious criminal harm and must be stopped cold. Encouraging the public to "red flag" each other is what dictators did in the Soviet Union, communist China and elsewhere. Leftist sympathizers in America are attempting it here. It cannot be allowed to proceed.
If people are too dangerous to keep and bear their own arms, they are too dangerous to be out in public, period.
Proposing to take a person's rights by armed force, without a trial or even a hearing, is such a violation of our laws, such an affront to the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and such a misuse of armed might, that anyone suggesting it should be subject to at least the psychiatric evaluation they would impose on us.
Legitimate methods already exist for intervening with truly dangerous people. Reluctance to do so reflects the extraordinary nature of taking such action against a person. Red-flag laws on the other hand are a casual workaround and a "clear and present danger" to public liberty. Proposing due-process removal by flagging is as bad as proposing racism by statute. The advocates must be stopped.
Using mass media to whip the public into a mass frenzy to support this paranoid delusion is a harbinger of the end of our peaceful Republic. It signals a desire to overturn centuries of righteous law-making with mob violence, turning neighbor against neighbor in a vain effort achieve safety.
Ben Franklin framed it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Shouldn't we all be flagged? Isn't everyone potentially dangerous?
Criminal Penalties for Voiding Due Process
The dilemma: How do we structure a new bill so "officials" who stand in the way of full and free exercise of a given right face a penalty, or some deterrent to their actions? Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to do?
The left in its fury is ignoring whether bills can pass legal muster. They push the envelope: "We'll examine your Google search history before we'll grant a carry license." Preposterous of course, a product of one dimwit Brooklyn, N.Y. legislator. What would they do with what they find? Who does the looking, and who could possibly pass? They don't say, but they push it, then "news" media bathes in it, and next thing you know, it's part of the social fabric - "the narrative."
We must do the same, force them back on their heels, even the odds. Should we seek Google checks for politicians and police before they're hired? Let them gripe. Officials who examine "bad" Google histories, maybe they've been corrupted by reviewing disqualifying histories (whatever that may be, it's undefined). Officials who promote grotesque civil-rights violation into laws should face repercussions. Why would honest people object?
Fortunately, we don't have to invent new laws. We simply need to resurrect existing ones, and enforce them. The U.S. Attorney's Office has been remiss in failing to enforce critical laws on the books: 18 U.S.c. §242. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Discriminating against civil rights is illegal. The right to keep and bear arms is and has always been a basic civil and human right. Your right to defend your life against anyone or thing that unjustly threatens you has historic precedent going back to before the Bible. It is ensconced in the earliest written law, the Code of Hammurabi in 1700 B.C., and it was restated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller Case as a "specific, enumerated right" (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628 n.27 (2008)).
In plain English, federal criminal code says anyone who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, custom or regulation, willfully deprives any person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to one year, or both.
It continues that, if bodily injury results, or if the violation includes the use or attempted or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosive or fire, the prison term rises up to 10 years. If death results, or if such acts include kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, attempted aggravated sexual assault, or an attempt to kill, the violator may be fined, imprisoned for any term of years up to life, or put to death. That's sufficient. It needs enforcement.
The left is screaming for new laws, let's give them some! Tax credits for gun-safety classes, encouraging a responsible citizenry, anyone? We must also look at repeals of the most onerous ones. Do you agree?
If Flimsey Grahamnesty’s embrace of amnesty for illegal aliens wasn’t enough to get him replaced, I doubt his embrace of red flag laws will be.
[[Empowering your neighbors, roommates, former lovers, relatives or people who have a grudge against you to use armed police to attack you, without warning or probable cause, does you serious criminal harm and must be stopped cold.]]
They already do it with Criminal Orders of Protection. Your neighbor can fill one out against you with virtually no proof at all and he doesn’t even have to go to court for it. You are guilty until proven innocent.
When the lunatic in the Florida school shooting is visited by police something like 30 times maybe it was time to do something then.
Sad, but prudent.
The left is collapsing civil liberties across the board and Trump will only tweet. He has no DoJ.
According to DiFi All Veterans should have their 2A Rights revoked because they All have PTSD.
How much more proof of evil intent does Red Flag need?
There are quite a few of our fellow citizens who believe there is plenty of “due Process” because someone with “judge” in their title signs an order.
I am hopeful that someone with deep pockets will be able to take this issue to SCOTUS and get it declared unconstitutional!
Red Flag laws put our Republic at grave risk!
DiFi is an Evil woman who consistently violates the US Constitution she took an oath to!
I am hopeful that someone with deep pockets will be able to take this issue to SCOTUS and get it declared unconstitutional!
Red Flag laws put our Republic at grave risk!
POTUS is getting some VERY BAD/EVIL advice on this issue!
Not only that, pull the shades so your neighbors can’t see in your house when you are cleaning your guns!
I “Googled” Criminal Order of Protection and found that there is a difference:
A Criminal Order of Protection arises out of a criminal case. The party asking for the entry of an Order of Protection is usually the prosecutor in a criminal Domestic Battery case. And it does not result in confiscated property; it forbids the defendant from being anywhere near the victim and from having any contact with the victim.
On the other hand, “Red Flag” judgements:
1. Result in confiscation of private property without due process;
2. Destroy the concept of “innocent until proven guilty;” and
3. Intentionally strip people of their constitutional rights.
“Red Flag” laws must not be allowed to stand!
ANY vote for a so-called “Red Flag” law is a vote against the American people and a vote against the US Constitution!
The point is to not permit a national “Red Flag” law.
We’ll have to deal with Flimsey Grahamnesty’s re-election as a separate matter!
[[A Criminal Order of Protection arises out of a criminal case. The party asking for the entry of an Order of Protection is usually the prosecutor in a criminal Domestic Battery case. And it does not result in confiscated property; it forbids the defendant from being anywhere near the victim and from having any contact with the victim.]]
In NY your neighbor can claim practically anything he wants on you, file one and your guns are gone. Its up to you to prove you are innocent and that was before the new Red Flag law. The neighbor doesn’t even have to go to court with you. When the claim is proven unfounded to a judge’s satisfaction, he (the neighbor) also won’t be held liable for anything because his complaint was subjective. (I was afraid, he threatened me, I didn’t like the looks of him when he was putting the guns in his car, it looked like a machine gun, etc.)
There is not enough money in Christendom to get me to live in New York!
That sounds more like an insane New York “Red Flag” law and not a Criminal Order of Protection.
What puzzles and FRustrates me about these kinds of laws is that they have not been adjudged unconstitutional!
Here’s the problem: The police aren’t going to investigate to see whether the charge is true. They will just react. IOW take away someone’s rights then try to find the time to investigate whether they should have done it.
So what if the policeman sent to take way a Veteran’s guns is a veteran?
Hopefully, we’ll never personally know what harm these “Red Flag” laws can do.
HST, the police aren’t the problem - the law is the problem!
It would appear that there are NO safeguards against erroneous or malicious “tattling” on someone and the ultimate seizure of their weapons.
No penalty for false accusation can lead to high order evil mischief-making, and it would appear that even if a person prevails, and gets their guns back (and who knows what condition your prized collection will be in when it is returned?), they have no recourse to recover damages.
“Red Flag” laws need to be repealed!
Bumping this thread with Lucy’s recent Red Flag links...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY11bISghxs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
Linked vid very worth the while to watch, everyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.